Canada and Australia: what would you build?
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
MiTasol
2nd Lieutenant
A quick question for all the brits and yanks out there
Which company designed, built and flew the second jet airliner?
If flew only 13 days after the first.
Which company designed, built and flew the second jet airliner?
If flew only 13 days after the first.
MiTasol
2nd Lieutenant
Yep, bloody colonials nearly beat the Brits and truly thrashed the Yanks.
If Rolls had got the Avon out on time the bloody colonials would have thoroughly beat the Brits too
Absolutely mate. I remember buying my first SAE tap and die set and was gutted after using the 1/2 inch tap to find none of my bolts would fit the cut thread.
Turns out they were Whitworth bolts.
Been around for some time on Holden Commodores; anyone who has done an oil change on an LS1 engined Commodore will know that the big iron plate protecting the oil sump is fitted with 13mm bolts!
MiTasol
2nd Lieutenant
Thanks, I was not aware of that. Only Australia would bastardise metric that way by calling a thread (that even the originating countries standards institute formally declared inactive for new design 60+ years earlier) a new "metric" bolt.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 3,954
- Jun 25, 2013
Arguably (I speak as a US engineer who has done fatigue testing of bolts...) the Whitworth thread form was better, as contemporary US thread had a very sharp angle in the root, vs the radiused one in the Whitworths.
No worries, MiTasol, As you probably know, there are things about Commodores that are positively agricultural (Falcons as well, for that matter), but they are tough and great to drive.
MiTasol
2nd Lieutenant
Agreed however the physical strength of the old American National Coarse thread was greater due to the 60 degree thread angle.
Whitworth was replaced in the UK, and ANC in the US, by the Unified National Coarse thread which used the best of both Whitworth and ANC by incorporating the ANC angles with the British radius at the base of the thread. UNC retains the ANC square top to the thread to allow for better lubrication. Likewise BSF and ANF were replaced by UNF.
Historically the USA used Whitworth for a time before changing to ANC in about 1860/70. Originally ANC had another name but I do not remember it. Because ANC was essentially derived from BSW many of the treads used the same number of threads per inch so in low tolerance hardware most British nuts will fit most American bolts and vice versa. In higher tolerance hardware the differing angles, rounded thread bases of whitworth and sharp tops on ANC threads prevent this interchangeability.
Last edited:
Kevin J
Banned
I'd still go with the Hurricane as the Spitfire has still not entered RAF service and is proving difficult to make in large numbers. In 1939, Air Ministry even considered cancelling the Spitfire on account of production problems. A P-40 with a Merlin III would be better than the Hurricane but the P-40 with the Allison doesn't fly until October 1938 so its a non-starter.
Kevin J
Banned
Kevin J
Banned
For Australia, I'd start the design of the Boomerang in 1939, the year the Wirraway entered service, not late 1941. The Boomerang was based on the Wirraway and first flew six months after the initial design discussions; it was in service six months later. So the Boomerang would enter service around the same time as the Reisen and one whole year before the Hayabusa. Performance wise its comparable with the Ki-43-I Hayabusa, slightly slower than the A6M2 Reisen. Then develop it. The CA-14A variant with a GE B-2 turbo flew in 1943, top speed was 375-390 mph. So this would now be flown in 1940 and broadly competitive with the Ki-44 Shoki and better than the P-47 Lancer speed wise. One problem with all this, the Buffalo has a better performance than the Boomerang as produced. So, I think you will all agree its only going to happen if the Boomerang is only produced with the GE B-2 turbo added. A 1942 service intro is feasible as the Lancer is in service with a turbo by that date. This would give the RAAF a decent fighter to defend the skies over Darwin and Port Moresby when they were needed.
I was amazed to read that the Boomerang had 0 air to air kills!
Given Australia only had the twin Wasp 1200hp made locally they may have been better off making Wildcat F4F-3. Although the Hurricane airframe should be easiest to make, Here is someones mock up of a twin wasp powered Hurricane!
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dizzyfugu/6847225752/in/photostream/
that may explain it.
Given Australia only had the twin Wasp 1200hp made locally they may have been better off making Wildcat F4F-3. Although the Hurricane airframe should be easiest to make, Here is someones mock up of a twin wasp powered Hurricane!
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dizzyfugu/6847225752/in/photostream/
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 853
- Feb 16, 2013
Very cool, looks like a P-36!
Kevin J
Banned
Given that Curtiss were setting up production lines for the P-36 in both India and China then perhaps they should have set one up in Australia too.
Kevin J
Banned
6M2
I've had a look at the CAC Woomera. The earliest date the Twin Wasp would have been available for a Boomerangs first flight would have been September 1941 as opposed to May 1942, so the Aussies would still not have been able to get it into service until early-mid 1942 and opposing the Jap Zero's I think they would have been slaughtered. As for a Twin Wasp powered Hurricane, I think that would have been under-powered so I guess the only option is the Twin Wasp powered Mohawk IV and this would have been competitive with the A6M2.
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-36/Curtiss_Hawk_75-A_Detail_Specifications.pdf
